Drones, and the 2019 USS Omaha and USS Russell incidents?
@LueElizondo: "So if you wanted to launch something over a Navy ship that can hover over the flight deck as has been reported through the Omaha and the Kidd incidents, then you're talking about a drone capability that
2 Lue: "is probably not a fixed-wing, long-range capability. It means it has to be launched from somewhere near by. Even two three miles, as far as you can with some of the more, if you will, commercially available, control systems. Even the best military systems you have some
3 Lue: "much longer capability, but you still have to launch them and you have to recover them, you don't just let them crash into the ocean because then they can be found, right? So they have to be launched from somewhere and they have to be controlled from somewhere by someone.
4 Lue: "And there's an infrastructure, a huge footprint, that is required to do that. You need a trained operator to do it, with enough juice where you can send out a signal to your quadcopter, your quadcopter can react and then enough, if u will, payload on this, so it can send
5 Lue: "the signal back to the operator. The operator knows where the drone is, it's looking at pictures & all that stuff, and then be able to fly the drone all the way back.
"So there's more practical challenges with trying to create something like that. If you're talking about
6 Lue: "a fixed-wing drone, that's a little easier but it's got to keep moving, it's got to be moving fairly fast, and it's not just going to stop and hover. So, therein lies the problem. If you want a loiter, you've got to launch it from relatively nearby. Now, the Navy has
7 Lue: "sea-domain awareness. They are the best at knowing anything that's in the ocean. These guys know. That's how we catch these drug runners coming in on these little tiny submersibles that you can barely see. There's a reason we catch them. So we know, if there's, let's say,
8 Lue "a Chinese frigate nearby that's launching drones, we know that. A lot of these ships have transponders on them, AIS. We know, unless they're squawking black, meaning they're not transmitting, then we have other ways 2 find out who's in our area & we have very high-fidelity
9 Lue: "radar systems and we have electro-optical systems. So, it's unlikely. I'm not saying it's impossible because the Chinese have harassed us before and vice versa with unmanned, aerial vehicles and aerial systems and by the way, that technology is improving, exponentially,
10 Lue: "almost every year, so at some point these things may have that capability that we're seeing, but right now, they don't, and that's the problem. The foreign, adversarial technology isn't where it needs to be for us to see the things that we're seeing, it's not there yet.
11 Lue: "It might be there in ten, fifteen, twenty years, but it's not there now."
That was the Jimmy Church interview from that online event. I'll have it up eventually.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1 Dr. Eric Davis: "The psychic component [of UFOs] is the one that disturbs ufologists, many of them, not all of them, and it also disturbs your typical academic STEM scientists because they consider psychic phenomenon to be fringe. And so it's a fringe topic and they won't
2 Davis: "consider any reality to it or consider evidence that's been investigated on it or that's been collected on it. So poltergeist phenomena is always, ALWAYS attached to #UFO encounters. It is something that's not very well understood or recognized by many in ufology & even
3 Davis: "the really good scientific UFO groups that have existed since the 70s and 80s, even ignored it. They just threw it out of any of their field investigations and case studies because it did not fit the model of what they believed UFOs or what they hypothesized UFOs to be.
1 Gonna stay off Twitter (I always say this & never do) to work on something (100% UFO-related) for later this week. In the meantime, if u wanna see what a lack of UFO news does, check out this discussion on drones. I'll say this again since it seems to get ignored: Our military
2 has encountered drones & will continue to encounter drones. However, if a video or pic of an encounter makes it into a UAPTF briefing, that means analysis has been done & they've ruled out all prosaic answers. That would include drones. There are some prominent folks in our
3 community who must think the Navy, ONI, UAPTF & analysts involved are all idiots bc @Aviation_Intel (and others) has labelled some of these balloons, drones or the results of spoofing. You don't think our experts have looked at that & know just as much (or more?) than TR?
1 Great point, @ddeanjohnson. If u go by what he said below & accept reincarnation may be real, karma may = bullshit. Oh, my arm was severely damaged in my previous life & when I was born again, I had a stump of an arm. Seems there's some sort of science as 2 how/why that happens
2 And for folks unfamiliar with the late, Dr. Ian Stevenson and his groundbreaking work on reincarnation, start with this article in the Washington Post Magazine from 1999...
3 From that article: "Before I actually met Stevenson, the only insight I had into him personally came from a reprint of a lecture he had given at Southeastern Louisiana University in 1989, in which he explained how he progressed from analyzing rat livers in a medical lab to"
1 I'll only go if @theurigeller goes with me and Kit Green tags along. Here's what Kit told me about Uri in Dec. 2019...
"I’m going to say this again so it comes out in capital letters and italicized: In the domain of what the data was that these remote viewers were looking at,
2 Kit: "I have known three that were essentially ninety-five - actually, if I tell the truth, really 100% accurate - all the time, every day. Whenever. One was Uri Geller, one was Pat Price and one is Xxxxx Xxx. And I should add a fourth person who is almost as good as they are:
3 Kit: "Ingo Swann. Now, I repeat what I just said in italics. I can’t speak to the accuracy of any of the three of them when they are describing a domain about which I have zero professional credentials. When Uri Geller, who waxes eloquently about things that he saw among the
1 Mellon: "...it should be clear that however well-intended, a small OSD UAP office lacking resources or authority is not the answer. Neither the UAP Task Force nor a small OSD office has the skill set and heft to effectively manage such a technically and bureaucratically complex
2 Mellon: "undertaking. Indeed, a new OSD UAP office could have a pernicious effect if it led members of Congress to neglect the UAP issue afterward because they thought a small OSD office was sufficient to fix the UAP problem.
"As a former OSD intelligence staffer, I can vouch
3 Mellon: "for the fact that the mere establishment of a small OSD UAP office is unlikely to accomplish much. Only the most senior OSD staff have much leverage with the services and agencies and then only when they are clearly acting at the behest of the Secretary. The situation